Now that we agree somewhat, who origianlly told you to use force one step above what was being used on you? I agree with tis somewhat from a standpoint of physical force, but even then, this rule of thumb (I'm assuming that's what it is anyway) is ambiguous enough to get you into some serious trouble. Observe and report sounds good to me, especially for what most SO's get paid.

_________________________
A block is a strike is a lock is a throw ....

It is what I have been taught from several different sources... the TN Certified Security Instructor I qualify with each year, my MARS Instructor, my Chief, who's been in the field as long as I've been alive, even had a few cop friends say something along the lines.

The question begs to be asked... I have to act. It's part of my job, it's part of my post orders, and it's part of who I am. When I act, if I don't take one step higher than the aggressor, does that not guarentee defeat?

Don't get me wrong, it's not a quick climb up most of that ladder. If someone is talking a bunch of crap, I just let it slide off. If they swing at me, I will deflect it, and let it go the first time. If they try to tackle me, ground work is acceptible, as long as I keep a reign on it.

However, if someone pulls a knife on me, I will, without hesitation, do the two-step-drop. Take two steps back, and drop the hammer.

Quote:I'm not sure of the point of this post. Everyone (at least in the United States) is governed by the laws for acceptable use of force in a self-defense situation. You can only use the necessary force to control a situation.

This is actually incorrect. Force used in a self defense situation must be "reasonable and proportionate" in relation to the threat. There is no constitutional requirement to use the least amount of force so long as the force used was reasonable under the given circumstances. In a given self defense situation where someone is trying to harm you, you are not limited to "controlling" them. You may generally respond with a level that is proportionally harmful to them in accordance with how you perceive the imminent violence of their actions.

Quote:You can't exceed the force being used against you.

Again, an over simplification. If you reasonably perceive a threat to your body or life, then you may respond with a comparable level of force. This means that if the threat is there and you reasonably perceive it and that such violence is imminent, you don't have to wait until you are attacked to "defend".

Quote:In a lot of locations (varies from state to state and county to county) you are required to run from a situation if the opportunity is available.

Possibly. Most jurisdictions that I am aware of do not require that you "run away", only that you make reasonable efforts to avoid confrontation and retreat when it is practical. The old "run away" rule generally applies to deadly force confrontations and is actually being amended in some jurisdictions to allow citizens to stand their ground even in a lethal confrontation and respond with deadly force of their own.

Contrary to popular belief there are some private security guards that are required to do a bit more than "observe and report". So they do have to learn a force continuum or ladder of force. Not all security guards are a biological security camera.

_________________________
Enjoy life while you can, you never know when things will change.

Fletch1Yes I may have over-simplified a bit in the beginning. However you seem to be doing a bit of glossing yourself.

Let's also not forget that reasonable and proportionate not only applies to you but to the people that will be the jury if it goes to court. What you deem to be reasonable better seem reasonable to your peers.

As for your second argument, there better already be a verbal threat on the part of the assailant or they better be brandishing a weapon. Otherwise, if you just thought you were going to be attacked and attack first you could be in a bit of a bind.

AS for your third point, every state that I've lived in requires that you remove yourself from a situation if you have the opportunity (unless it happens in your home or an extension of your home like your car). For instance, I'm about to move to North Carolina and I've already checked some laws there with a friend who was a LEO there. If a physical assault happens everyone goes to jail automatically with a disturbing the peace charge. Assault charges follow for the guilty party later.

laf7773I'm not up on international law concerning use of force but I would think that a security guard would fall under the same use of force policies that are used for the civilian population of the country in question. Almost every country in the world has law enforcement. If that's the case then why would security guards need police powers when it comes to use of force? I was offered a postion with CSC/Dyncorp a few years ago in Iraq. Considering that they wanted me to qualify with a 9mm, an m-16, a 60mm machine gun and an M-2 .50 cal I don't think they had much observing and reporting in mind. However, that doesn't make it legal to over-react to a situation. Look at what happened with Black Water Security there. While nothing will probably ever be done about it, what they did was illegal if it went down like all of the civilians reported.

You are correct, not all guards are "biological cameras". However, that doesn't mean that they have any more rights than an ordinary citizen.

_________________________
A block is a strike is a lock is a throw ....

Well i'm not referring to security guards overseas. Just because my profile says Greece doesnít mean thatís all I know. I'm talking about those in the states. There are several security guards that have the same responsibilities as law enforcement minus arrest authority. There are private communities that employ armed security patrols that can perform all the same tasks as a police office short of physically placing you under arrest. We have armed private security guards manning the gates for many military installations now (mostly Navy and Air Force). When it comes to physical action or reaction it comes down to what is being protected and the laws of the state they are in or if they are on government property. You seem to be under the impression that in every state a citizen isn't allowed to defend themselves and is required to run away from an attacker, this isn't true. In some states both citizens and security guards have the right, in some cases a requirement, to physically defend themselves and others even with deadly force. By your logic there would be no need for armed security guards in the United States because if they ever had to use their weapon they would go to jail. The fact is many are trained to use a baton, OC, fire arm and how to make arrests. The only thing they really don't have is arrest authority with the exception of citizenís arrest. You can bet that if a security guard has reason to believe his life or the life of another is in danger and they are able to articulate that belief properly and they shoot you, they are not going to jail. The ďprimaryĒ responsibility of security is to observe and report but itís not always their only responsibility.

The smart thing for those in the security business, as well as civilians, is to learn what your legal rights are in your area regarding self defense and defense of others.

_________________________
Enjoy life while you can, you never know when things will change.

Wow , it seems that you're reading a lot into what I said, or maybe I didn't make myself clear with what I said. I have been security like the security you're talking about. What I'm saying is that these special security details don't carry any more rights than a regular security detail. The companies guarding special installations such as military bases and nuclear facilities are noexception to the rules that I was talking about. Of course, if someone is credibly threatened with death or a weapon then you are allowed to use lethal force. What I'm saying is that you better have your bases covered when you do it. That applies to anyone not just security personnel. I don't recall ever having said that a citizen couldn't defend him or herself. What I said was some states require you to exit a situation if there is an opportunity to do so. I was not talking about lethal force situations.

I will fully agree with you about one thing. It is the smart thing to do to learn your local laws and how they apply to you especially if you are in security. I make all of my martial arts students know the laws concerning their rights in defending themselves at a state county and town level. They can all be slightly different and the town ordinances where the incident takes place supercede the state regulations as long as the town or county ordinance is more strict and not less.

_________________________
A block is a strike is a lock is a throw ....